Media Girl - Political parties in the United Stateshttp://mediagirl.org/taxonomy/term/377/0
enSo what about a "tea party" for those of us who live in reality?http://mediagirl.org/media-girl/so-what-about-tea-party-those-us-who-live-reality
<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/bswise/4621075758/" title="mlk by B.S. Wise, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4066/4621075758_6c21beb236.jpg" width="500" height="500" alt="mlk" /></a><br />
There's no doubting the energy in the tea bagger movement. The spittle practically flies at you right out of the TV screen.</p>
<p>There have been some interesting articles on the tea baggers lately. One of the most interesting is Mark Lilla's in The New York Review of Books: <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/27/tea-party-jacobins/">"The Tea Party Jacobins"</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>A new strain of populism is metastasizing before our eyes, nourished by the same libertarian impulses that have unsettled American society for half a century now. Anarchistic like the Sixties, selfish like the Eighties, contradicting neither, it is estranged, aimless, and as juvenile as our new century. It appeals to petulant individuals convinced that they can do everything themselves if they are only left alone, and that others are conspiring to keep them from doing just that. This is the one threat that will bring Americans into the streets.</p>
<p>Welcome to the politics of the libertarian mob.</p></blockquote>
<p>I can't so easily dismiss everything that these "Jacobins" have to say, though. Among my concerns are indeed:</p>
<ul>
<li>The increasing power of the government.</li>
<li>The increasing budget of the government.</li>
<li>The increasing deficit of the government.</li>
<li>The apparent erosion of civil rights.</li>
</ul>
<p>No doubt your average tea bagger would define these concerns a bit differently than I do. But there's a bit of common ground there. And I'd say most progressives share these concerns. It's been a regular refrain in the progressive blogosphere for years.</p>
<p>But the tea baggers come with baggage — offensive, hateful baggage that I simply can't endorse, or even stomach:</p>
<ul>
<li>The anti-immigrant cant that smacks of racism and xenophobia and fear.</li>
<li>The anti-gay rage that burns with homophobia and fear.</li>
<li>The <a href="http://mediagirl.org/media-girl/because-health-when-it-comes-women-really-does-belong-air-quotes">anti-women's health attitudes</a> that crackle with misogyny and chauvinism and fear.</li>
<li>The hysterical, amped up propagandizing, with liberal use of "fascist" and "socialist," often in the same sentence that drips with fear.</li>
<li>And the utter stupidity that wails about fantasy nightmares like "the government taking over Medicare" (which, for you who were left behind, <strong><em>is</em></strong> a government program).</li>
</ul>
<p>So where's the party for those of us who are fiscally on the conservative side and socially on the live-and-let-live side? Obviously the Republicans have been on a government-regulating-private-lives bent for decades now, so they're out. And the Democrats … well … when they aren't selling out to right-wing interests, they're coming up with big projects like this was 1965.</p>
<p>I feel like I've had no party my entire voting life. The Republicans have been hyenas barking at everyone to get in line, and the Democrats have been gazelles, running away, always striving for style points.</p>
<p>In the olden days, there was a real debate between Democrats and Republicans. It seems like it was more principled, more about ideas than about strutting around, claiming to be "the real Americans." And there certainly was less brazen selling out to lobbyists.</p>
<p>There was a time when Republicans were led by people like Barry Goldwater, who had what today would be considered "radical" ideas about small government: that "the government should stay out of people's private lives," and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater">that included homosexuality and abortion</a>. <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special25/articles/0611goldwater.html">He even supported gays in the military</a>.</p>
<p>It's a wonder the tea baggers aren't burning him in effigy.</p>
<p>Imagine a Goldwater kind of Republican Party opposing the Democrats. I wouldn't agree with them on a lot of things, but at least it's philosophically consistent, and would be a good counterbalance to the Democrats. As it is, I find myself rooting for the Dems not so much because I support what they're doing up and down the line — far from it — but rather because I find the Republican opposition so unprincipled, so spiteful, so unpatriotic and so incredibly stupid that it doesn't just turn me off, it frightens me.</p>
<p>It's almost like George W. Bush was a restraining influence, and now the wingnuts are <em>really</em> cutting loose.</p>
<p>No, if you're a fiscal moderate with leave-people-alone views on private life, like I am, you know that, when it comes down to it, we have no party to represent us. We just support the party that works against us the least. Resigned. Disgusted. Seeing the appeal of embracing cynical distance from it all, because actually doing something sensible seems so out of reach of our government these days.</p>
<p>And meanwhile the tea baggers mock us with their lurid, tragi-comic mockery of what this country really needs.</p>
<p>So now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to wrap up this little rant, pour myself a drink, and watch some TV like a good citizen.</p>
<!-- google_ad_section_start --><!-- google_ad_section_end -->http://mediagirl.org/media-girl/so-what-about-tea-party-those-us-who-live-reality#commentsabortionDemocratshomophobiapoliticsreproductive rightsRepublicansBarry GoldwaterBarry GoldwaterConservatism in the United StatesDemocratic PartyFox NewsGeorge W. BushLibertarianismPolitical parties in the United StatesPoliticsPolitics of the United StatesRepublican PartySocial IssuesSocial IssuesTeaThu, 20 May 2010 00:42:20 +0000media girl1653 at http://mediagirl.orgChickens have come home to roost (or something): Democrats and Republicans paying the pricehttp://mediagirl.org/media-girl/democrats-and-republicans-paying-price
<p>The healthcare debate happening now, let's face it, is the result of the decisions the Democratic and Republican parties have "evolved" (and I use that word advisedly) over the years.</p>
<h3>RINO Whinos</h3>
<p>The bad behavior of the GOP is just the tip of the iceberg of the Republican sell-out back in the 1960s. That's when the religious conservatives, empowered by Barry Goldwater's loss in the presidential campaign of 1964, surged into power and moved the GOP from being about fiscal conservatism and civil liberties and leaving people alone to live their own lives into the party of Big Brother, demanding governmental control over people's private lives while pushing major forms of corporate welfare.</p>
<p>The 2-year-old types of behavior the Republican leaders and prominent activists are indulging in arises out of this kind of self-righteous outlook on life. They consider themselves the good people, the "real" Americans. (And let's just not pay attention to their embracing of secession from the United States as an expression of their patriotism.) No, they aren't getting their way so they pout and whine and cry "no."</p>
<p>They also preach fear. It's a big thing to them, their fear. They are afraid of everyone ... especially Americans. Be afraid.</p>
<p>Well I am afraid. I'm afraid of them. They are creepy.</p>
<h3>They'll Let Anyone in this Big Tent</h3>
<p>But let's look at the Democrats. They're no great shakes either. Here they are in control of Congress and the White House and they can't get anything done.</p>
<p><strong>Why the hell was this healthcare reform vote last night such a squeaker?</strong></p>
<p>I'll tell you: It's that Big Tent strategy that the Democrats embraced years ago, starting around 2004. Remember that? When women were told to shut up and stop distracting people from the "important shit"? This is when the Democrats started actively recruiting anti-choice candidates, anti-gay candidates.</p>
<p>They Democrats in Congress are comprised of a high percentage of the opposite of RINOs (Republicans in name only): REBAONs (Republicans by any other name).</p>
<p>And so we get nitwits like Stupak.</p>
<h3>The Senate is full of it, buster</h3>
<p>Of course, all of this is aggravated by "Senate tradition" which really just the latest tactics employed on a rule that the Senate made up so long ago nobody in office really knows what it's even about:</p>
<p>The filibuster.</p>
<p>What a load of crap this is. This whole idea that a supermajority now must be in place for anything to happen is in large part why nothing much is ever accomplished in the Senate.</p>
<p>So with the Republicans opposing <em>anything</em> that the Democrats support, and the Democrats too timid to call the Republicans' bluff and actually force them to filibuster — I'd love to see that! — we have a case where the Republicans are actually running the Senate.</p>
<p>Any wonder why we're where we are now?</p>
<p>Could you imagine a Lyndon B. Johnson or a Barry Goldwater in today's political climate? Johnson would be a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brobdingnag" title="Remember Gulliver&#39;s Travels?">Brobdingnagian</a> in today's Senate.</p>
<p>On the other hand, Barry Goldwater would be attacked by Republicans as being a "socialist" because he supported the separation of church and state and opposed governmental intrusions into private lives. </p>
<p>Yeah, that's a socialist. Uh huh.</p>
<!-- google_ad_section_start --><!-- google_ad_section_end --><div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-seealso">
<div class="field-label">See also:&nbsp;</div>
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/blog/media-girl/2005/06/dept-important-why-womens-equality-core-issue">Dept. of &quot;Important Shit&quot;: Why women&#039;s equality is a core issue</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/blog/media-girl/2005/09/can-big-tent-stand-without-any-tent-poles">Can a big tent stand without any tent poles?</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/media-girl/how-wide-big-tent">How wide that big tent</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/media-girl/no-room-birth-control-big-tent">No room for birth control in the &quot;big tent&quot;</a> </div>
<div class="field-item odd">
<a href="/blog/media-girl/2005/09/pro-choice-already-big-tent-duh">Pro-choice already is the &quot;big tent&quot; (duh!)</a> </div>
<div class="field-item even">
<a href="/blog/media-girl/2005/06/be-kos-its-not-about-pies">Be-Kos it&#039;s not about the pies</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
http://mediagirl.org/media-girl/democrats-and-republicans-paying-price#commentsundefinedBarry GoldwaterBarry GoldwaterBig tentBusinessBusinessConservatism in the United StatesEntertainmentEntertainmentEnvironmentEnvironmentFilibusterHealthHealthLaborLaborLyndon B. JohnsonParliamentary procedurePolitical parties in the United StatesPoliticsPoliticsPolitics of the United StatesRepublican In Name OnlyRepublican PartySocial IssuesSocial IssuesMon, 22 Mar 2010 18:29:48 +0000media girl1648 at http://mediagirl.orgWith the Supreme Court targeting Roe, where shall progressives draw the line? (Will they draw any line?)http://mediagirl.org/media-girl/supreme-court-targeting-roe-where-shall-progressives-draw-line-will-they-draw-any-line
<p><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-shaw/if-hillarys-nominated-n_b_46497.html" rel="nofollow">Russell Shaw calls for progressives to unite</a> around whatever Democratic Party nominee for president:</p>
<p>I look at this past week's 5-4 Supreme Court vote against "partial birth abortion." Then I hold up the ages of liberal Justices John Paul Stevens (87), and an increasingly feeble Ruth Bader Ginsburg (74) against the actuarial tables. </p>
<p>I just pray these two are able to serve on the Court until that hopefully blessed morning of January 20, 2009. At Noon on that day, a Democrat will- from my mouse to the Goddess' ears- take the Oath.I'd love for the oath-taker to be Al Gore, or John Edwards, or Bill Richardson. But if it comes down to saving Roe, I'd settle for Hillary. With more campaign funds than her Democratic opponents, her nomination is likely. I can see where Obama will fade, Edwards may need to drop out, and Gore will stay out.At this point in time, though, I can see a scenario that causes ideological purists on our side of the fence to do something stupid that will cause Hillary to fall short, and thus, pave the path for another anti-choice, Justice-appointng [sic] Republican to get into the White House.</p>
<p>Despite the fact that Russell Shaw is echoing radical right-wing (as well as Markos Moulitsas) talking points about "ideological purity" -- a Rovian expression if I ever heard one -- I can see his point. Just this morning, I was thinking about how any of the top four -- Obama, Edwards, Richardson or even Clinton -- would get my vote. And while I know not nearly enough to choose any one above the others, at this point, my sense is that one of them would suffice for me come November next year.<br />
Making that decision so much easier is the fact that the Republicans have so far offered up boobs, bigots and bobbies. Given the radical and, yes, misogynist and, yes again, racist and, yes, obviously, homophobic values at the core of the right wing, I don't see myself voting for any Republican for president any time soon. Add in their modern penchant for fascistic governmental control over individuals -- making the phrase "the party of Goldwater" an oxymoronic joke -- and I don't see myself voting Republican in my lifetime.<br />
However, Congress is a different matter. Do we continue to vote for <a href="http://www.ourword.org/node/476" rel="nofollow">pro-forced-pregnancy Democrats</a>? How do we, as progressives, in good conscience cast our lot with men (yes once more, I'm afraid) who consider women's right to privacy to be non-existent, women's medical choices to be controlled by politicians, women's health to be a distraction, women's lives to be important only when not distracting from other interests, and women's bodies to be, ultimately, Property of the U.S. Government?<br />
I wonder how many Democratic and independent voters even realize that their Democratic Senator(s) and/or Representative is an advocate of forced pregnancy.<br />
The question is pertinent right now, pre-primaries, while we look at what kind of future we want to forge in the can't-come-soon-enough post-Bush America. Now is the time to ask the questions. Now is the time to choose. Now is the time to push for the progressives that will defend privacy and equal rights and civil rights and human rights for everyone, not just the ruling men who look upon the rest of us as "peasants."<br />
It's not an easy thing, when the Democratic Party, whose vague favoring of progressive values stands out like a monument to all things noble and just when compared with the venal depravity that describes the power centers of the GOP, has such a slim and weak hold upon Congress.<br />
It's all the more difficult when you consider that <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/19/182752/132" rel="nofollow">men claiming progressive values</a> have <a href="http://ethicalwerewolf.blogspot.com/2005/08/choice-and-choices.html" rel="nofollow">historically</a> <a href="http://pinkofeministhellcat.typepad.com/pinko_feminist_hellcat/2005/06/im_not_going_to.html" rel="nofollow">dismissed</a> our alarms about the <a href="http://mediagirl.org/node/1029" rel="nofollow">Handmaid trends</a> happening in our politics -- our politics. And it sure as heck doesn't help that <a href="http://pandagon.net/2007/04/13/how-to-not-be-an-asshole-a-guide-for-men/" rel="nofollow">ignorance and willful ignorance on the part of ostensibly well-intentioned men when it comes to issues women face continue</a>.<br />
The demographics are with us, though. More GOP seats in the Senate are up for election next year. Americans in general are suspicious of an overly invasive Government. And, while meaningful statistics are lacking (at least from what I can tell), based on anecdotal evidence there are quite a number of so-called "pro-life" Americans who oppose abortion until the issue comes home to roost <a href="http://www.bushvchoice.com/archives/2007/04/one_womans_stor.html" rel="nofollow">in their own families, in their own lives</a>.</p>
<p>So what's it going to be, boys? When you throw women's lives into the mix, does women's equality count as "important shit"?</p>
<!-- google_ad_section_start --><!-- google_ad_section_end --><div class="field field-type-emvideo field-field-video">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item odd">
<div class="emvideo emvideo-video emvideo-"></div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<p><a href="http://mediagirl.org/media-girl/supreme-court-targeting-roe-where-shall-progressives-draw-line-will-they-draw-any-line" target="_blank">read more</a></p>http://mediagirl.org/media-girl/supreme-court-targeting-roe-where-shall-progressives-draw-line-will-they-draw-any-line#commentshuman rightsabortionBarack ObamaBill Richardsonbirth controlBlog for Choicecivil rightsCongressDemocratselectionelection 2008emergency contraceptionERAfeminismgenderHarry ReidhealthHillary ClintonJohn EdwardsKosNancy Pelosipoliticsprivacyprogressive valuesreproductive rightsRepublicansSupreme CourtWhite HousewomenAl GoreBarack ObamaBusinessBusinessDemocratic PartyEntertainmentEntertainmentEnvironmentEnvironmentGoogleHealthHealthHospitalityHospitalityJohn EdwardsLawLawPolitical parties in the United StatesPoliticsPoliticsPresidents of the United Nations Security CouncilRepublican PartySun, 22 Apr 2007 18:02:22 +0000media girl1479 at http://mediagirl.orgCan the Democrats be Democrats in 2007?http://mediagirl.org/media-girl/can-democrats-democrats-2007
<p>The <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070102/ap_on_go_co/congress_poll">latest AP/AOL poll shows</a> that Americans are behind what what might be seen as a would-be Democratic agenda:</p>
<blockquote><div>Two of the Democrats' top goals — a higher minimum wage and federal funding of embryonic stem cell research — enjoy broad public support as the party takes control of Congress for the first time in a dozen years.
<p>An overwhelming majority also supports making it easier for people to buy prescription drugs from other countries.</p></div>
</blockquote>
<p>On the surface, this sounds like good news. And yet one doesn't have to look back too far to see Democrats bending over backwards to appear as Republican as possible.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19795">the latest New York Review of Books</a>, Elizabeth Drew notes:</p>
<blockquote><div>In fact, K Street will not change a great deal even though the Democrats are in charge on Capitol Hill and Tom DeLay is gone. Democrats have their own K Street connections, and the lobbying firms, anticipating a Democratic win in November, had already begun recruiting more Democrats, and raising more money for the Democratic Party. The Republican lobbyists have no lack of business: they will now devote their efforts to trying to block new Democratic legislation that their clients oppose, such as lower drug prices in the prescription drug program, or elimination of tax breaks. The question is whether, like the Republicans, the Democrats will allow their own lobbyist allies to have the run of Capitol Hill, even letting them write bills there.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Lots of unknowns. Given the lackluster performance and deliberately vision-less stances on issues over the last six years of Congress, I'm not holding my breath for the time when Democrats stand up with any sort of leadership. Nancy Pelosi has been rather underwhelming so far, and Harry Reid manages to talk around and around issues without really saying much of anything.</p>
<p>Yet there will be new committee chairs, which hopefully will lead to some actual participation in the nation's business. On the other hand, with a third of the Senate looking at presidential bids, we might get more peacock feathers than turkey talk.</p>
<p>Lots of unknowns. We'll see.</p>
<!-- google_ad_section_start --><!-- google_ad_section_end -->http://mediagirl.org/media-girl/can-democrats-democrats-2007#commentsCongressDemocratsHarry ReidHouseNancy PelosiSenateCDATADemocratic PartyElections in the United StatesNancy PelosiPolitical parties in the United StatesPoliticsPolitics of the United StatesRepublican PartyWed, 03 Jan 2007 00:23:46 +0000media girl1418 at http://mediagirl.orgNow that the Democrats lead Congress, now what?http://mediagirl.org/media-girl/now-democrats-lead-congress-now-what
<p>The <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061111/ap_on_go_co/democrats__two_year_lease">AP raises the question on many minds</a>:</p>
<blockquote><div>It's the question Democrats would rather not ask in their moment of revelry: Are their new majorities in the House and Senate sustainable?
<p>What if the war in Iraq is over by 2008? Or what if it is still being waged despite Democratic pledges to change the course? What if voter antipathy toward President Bush is irrelevant in two years? After all, he will be on his way out....</p>
<p>...As some Democrats begin looking to 2008 and beyond, the challenge is how to turn antipathy toward Republicans into affection for Democrats.</p></div>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, what will these "new" Democrats stand for? After all, a number of them believe the state should regulate women's bodies. More than a few believe homosexual Americans should be afforded fewer rights on the basis of their sexual orientation. These are issues the Republicans are almost certain to push on over the next couple of years.</p>
<p>What do the Democrats stand for, now that they've dropped the ERA from their platform? Senator Chuck Schumer's answer is (wait for it) a three-point plan. (It's not a real plan unless you can count off the main points on your fingers.)</p>
<blockquote><div>It would begin with modest plans to increase the minimum wage, provide more tax breaks on college tuition, encourage greater energy independence and require drug companies to negotiate for lower Medicare drug prices.
<p>Democrats then must work in bipartisan fashion to confront the war in Iraq and government deficits, Schumer said.</p>
<p>"Thirdly, we have to try our best to come up with a full vision and platform that points toward '08," he said.</p></div>
</blockquote>
<p>It's that third point that is the biggest challenge. What will this new platform look like? Will the voters who put the Democrats into office see the Democratic Party as representing them and their interests? Or will the Democrats try to look even more Republican so they can win Republican votes?</p>
<p>Of course, all this begs the questions: What will the Republicans do, now that they've received such a drubbing? Some are calling for even more conservatism, more wingnuttery, to appeal to even more hard-core right-wingers. If that's the case, when it comes to hate-mongering by the right, we ain't seen nothing yet.</p>
<p>I would hope they would rediscover the roots they claim to have, and look more to Goldwater conservatism rather than Pinochet conservatism, and give up their dreams of establishing a religious police state. Maybe that's too much to hope for.</p>
<!-- google_ad_section_start --><!-- google_ad_section_end -->http://mediagirl.org/media-girl/now-democrats-lead-congress-now-what#commentshuman rightscivil rightsCongressDemocratselectionHousepoliticsreproductive rightsRepubicansSenateCDATAChuck SchumerDemocratic PartyInternational Democrat UnionJackson, MichiganPerson CareerPolitical parties in the United StatesPoliticsPolitics of the United StatesQuotationRepublican PartySat, 11 Nov 2006 20:18:31 +0000media girl1403 at http://mediagirl.orgRepublicans pass torture bill, eliminate habeus corpushttp://mediagirl.org/media-girl/republicans-pass-torture-bill-eliminate-habeus-corpus
<p>Some people have asked me why mediagirl.org has gone to black. It is in mourning and concern for our Constitution, which <a href="http://mediagirl.org/node/1318">the President has railed against as an obstacle to his pursuit of power</a>....</p>
<p>...because now <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060929/ap_on_go_co/congress_terrorism;_ylt=A9FJqatThx1FOFwAtgKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-">the Republicans have done gone along with him</a>:</p>
<blockquote><div>"In this new era of threats, where the stark and sober reality is that America must confront international terrorists committed to the destruction of our way of life, this bill is absolutely necessary," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.
<p>The overall bill would prohibit war crimes and define such atrocities as rape and torture but otherwise would allow the president to interpret the Geneva Conventions, the treaty that sets standards for the treatment of war prisoners.</p>
<p>The bill on interrogations and trials also would eliminate some rights common in military and civilian courts.</p></div>
</blockquote>
<p>So President Bush gets to decide (a) who's a terrorist, (b) who therefore has no Constitutional rights, (c) what does or doesn't consititute torture of this alleged terrorist ... and if lines are crossed, nobody can be prosecuted.</p>
<p>The bill <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/washington/29detain.html?_r=1&amp;oref=slogin">strips habeus corpus for any suspect labeled by the executive branch as an "enemy combatant"</a>:</p>
<blockquote><div>The measure would broaden the definition of enemy combatants beyond the traditional definition used in wartime, to include noncitizens living legally in the United States as well as those in foreign countries and anyone determined to be an enemy combatant under criteria defined by the president or secretary of defense.
<p>It would strip at Guantánamo detainees of the habeas right to challenge their detention in court, relying instead on procedures known as combatant status review trials. Those trials have looser rules of evidence than the courts.</p></div>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060929/ap_on_el_se/terror_politics;_ylt=A9FJqatThx1FOFwAtQKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-">Some Democrats cravenly voted in favor</a> of giving the Executive Branch authoritarian police state powers, believing it would help them get re-elected:</p>
<blockquote><div>"It's time for terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to face justice," Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, said, projecting a tough-on-terrorism position and sounding very much like Republicans who are gunning for his House seat Nov. 7.
<p>The Texan is among the Democrats in hard-fought races who sided with Bush and Republicans.</p></div>
</blockquote>
<p>AP reporter Liz Sidoti seems to want to help advance the Republican spin.</p>
<blockquote><div>"They are voting in line with what they perceive to be the views of a majority of their constituencies on this issue," said Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University political scientist.
<p>He suggested that these Democrats cast their votes not because of this election year but because of the next few, saying: "They're just trying to avoid trouble in the future."</p>
<p>The several Senate Democrats considering running for president in 2008 may not be so lucky. All of them voted against the measure — and those votes could leave them vulnerable to Republican attacks beyond November.</p></div>
</blockquote>
<p>Of course, endorsing torture in deed, if not in name, may not be a wise political move, either. There are still some people in this country who believe in American values, and not American might-makes-right.</p>
<!-- google_ad_section_start --><!-- google_ad_section_end -->http://mediagirl.org/media-girl/republicans-pass-torture-bill-eliminate-habeus-corpus#commentshuman rightscivil rightselectionGuantanamo BayRepublicansterrorismtortureEnemy combatantEthicsHuman rights abusesLawLaws of warMoralityPerson CareerPhilosophy of lawPolitical parties in the United StatesPoliticsQuotationRepublican PartySaxby ChamblissTechnologyTechnologyTortureWarWarFri, 29 Sep 2006 21:21:10 +0000media girl1371 at http://mediagirl.orgWhen rage burns to cindershttp://mediagirl.org/media-girl/when-rage-burns-cinders
<p>I suppose that, as a political blogger, I should be more engaged these days. Mid-term elections are on. The right wing is eager to force women into pregnancy. Republicans are dealing with internal battles their innate racism and free-trade ideology. The ice caps are melting away. And Bush is, well, still in power, which is bad news for the world.</p>
<p>I suppose that we all burn out at some point. Frankly, I find it hard to engage with the so-called liberal blogozoid these days. It's getting to be like the right-wing echosphere, colored by party-first dogmatists and <a href="http://www.mediagirl.org/node/797" rel="nofollow">regressive apologists</a> with world views defined by growing up under Reagan and political styles more reminiscent of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall" rel="nofollow">Tammany Hall</a> than city hall. <a href="http://mediagirl.org/node/717" rel="nofollow">Manufacturing consent</a> is a phrase that resonates with me now.</p>
<p>I suppose it's to be expected, what with elections this year and all that.</p>
<p>But really, <a href="http://mediagirl.org/node/1095" rel="nofollow">it's disgusting</a>. The real agents of change in this country are cultural and technological. Politically, we're lost in a political atmosphere reminiscent of the 1850s. 1850 is <a href="http://mediagirl.org/node/729" rel="nofollow">where the Republicans want to take this country</a>, and the Democrats <a href="http://mediagirl.org/node/1051" rel="nofollow">play along</a> by <a href="http://mediagirl.org/node/754" rel="nofollow">accommodating, appeasing</a> and recruiting bigoted, misogynist and xenophobic twits and goons who are right along with the minus-150-years agenda.</p>
<p>Call me jaded, but I don't believe one whit that jackasses and fucktards who were <a href="http://mediagirl.org/node/600" rel="nofollow">attacking</a> pro-choice progressives as "single-issue voters" now suddenly have gotten religion and actually back gender equality and reproductive rights. I don't believe that anyone who endorsed Casey or Kaine or any of the plethora of forced-pregnancy advocates is truly a friend of <a href="http://mediagirl.org/node/490" rel="nofollow">women's autonomy</a>. They say it's "the big tent."</p>
<!-- google_ad_section_start --><!-- google_ad_section_end --><p><a href="http://mediagirl.org/media-girl/when-rage-burns-cinders" target="_blank">read more</a></p>http://mediagirl.org/media-girl/when-rage-burns-cinders#commentshuman rightsbloggingcivil rightspoliticsprogressive valuesrantreproductive rightsBig tentCDATADemocratic PartyPolitical parties in the United StatesPoliticsPro-choiceRepublican PartyFri, 31 Mar 2006 02:02:09 +0000media girl1234 at http://mediagirl.orgIt's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad Partyhttp://mediagirl.org/media-girl/its-mad-mad-mad-mad-party
<p>On the front page of the Orange Star, <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/22/5402/98835" rel="nofollow">DarkSyde writes, "Are You Mad Enough Yet?"</a>:</p>
<p>The opposition is banking, literally, on our apathy. Karl Rove is depending on you not to register to vote. Dick Cheney is praying you won't talk two into joining you. Jerry Falwell and James Dobson are anointing themselves with magic wingnut oil to keep you from checking with your local party HQ to see if there's a candidate who needs volunteers, or something as simple as signatures to get a local candidate on the ballot. <strong>There are plants and trolls here specifically to stir up division and to spread the idea that your vote won't be counted, no matter where, no matter what.</strong><br />
It's rather amusing to me, given that the Orange Star leadership set the tone by stirring up division with spirited attacks on progressives and progressive organizations. Kosniks are now well-versed in anti-feminist and anti-environmentalist rhetoric. Oh, I have no doubt that wingnut trolls wade into that pond and stir things up there, as they have on occasion here. But Kos and Company seem to manage to stir up division quite well on their own.</p>
<p>Been attacked for your "ideological purity"? That's a right-wing talking point. Been labeled as a "single-issue voter"? Right-wing talking point. Dismissed for your "pet cause"? Yes, another right-wing talking point. Since when did so-called Democrats attack progressives with right-wing talking points? Ask the DLC. Why does it persist? Ask Kos and Company.</p>
<p>They will argue (over and over again) that they don't need to stand for anything, because Bush and his Republican cohorts are just <em>so evil</em>. It may be true, but Bush isn't running again, and all the Republicans have to do is seem not quite so evil and the whole Dem strategy falls apart. This is the soft underbelly to DarkSyde's front-page rant. <strong>Because people don't just vote </strong><strong><em>against</em></strong><strong> people and parties -- we saw how successful that strategy was in 2004! No, people vote </strong><strong><em>for</em></strong><strong> people. People vote </strong><strong><em>for</em></strong><strong> ideas. People vote </strong><strong><em>for</em></strong><strong> vision. And that's because people vote their identity -- they see what they want embodied in a candidate, and they get fired up and vote.</strong></p>
<p>Right now, the Democrats have no identity, except as weak, cowering second fiddles to the GOP bullies. We see it in their rhetoric, we see it in their lack of cohesiveness on issue after issue, we see it in their seeming inability, after many months, to come up with their own sort of Contract On America, and we see it in how they recruit and pave the way for candidates who do not believe in Democratic principles....</p>
<p>...candidates who advocate forced pregnancy, for example.</p>
<p>The Democrats are un-done by their "big tent." They're so all over the map, they can't agree to be for anything ... except getting re-elected.</p>
<p>How ironic, then, to see <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/3/20/125915/638" rel="nofollow">what the Orange Star himself posted just two days ago</a>:</p>
<p>And Democrats are doing everything in their power to ensure that people have no reason to go to the polls. They aren't going to vote for Republicans. That much is clear. But why should they vote for Democrats, the same Democrats who have failed to stand up to Republican excesses over the past five years?...</p>
<p>...These risk averse Dems think that by merely having a pulse, voters will gladly rush to them to save them from Republicans. But in reality, voters (including much of the Democratic base) are disillusioned. Why vote for Democrats who haven't shown an ounce of fight the last six years? What's the point?<br />
Kos doesn't mention how he has attacked the Democratic base, and in the litany of Republican abuses he offers in this post, nary a mention of South Dakota or how the fanatics on the right are legislating into reality the Handmaid's Tale. What seems clear, despite his new author-of-the-month status, is that he doesn't really understand what the grassroots are about.</p>
<p><strong>Voting </strong><strong><em>for</em></strong><strong> something. </strong></p>
<p>Flash back a few years: Why did Dean get so much grassroots support in his presidential nomination bid? Because people were <em>for</em> him -- not because they were against everyone else. People get out of bed in the morning to <em>do</em> something, to <em>support</em> someone, to effect <em>positive</em> change -- not simply to stop something.</p>
<p>Look at Ralph Nader. Most of his supporters wouldn't have voted at all if he weren't running. (That's why he didn't spoil Gore's victory.) Imagine if the Democrats fielded a candidate who actually appealed to the progressive base of the Democratic Party! (Someone like the Al Gore of today, rather than the Al Gore of 2000.)</p>
<p>Yet the Democrats continue to turn their backs on progressives, offering up either bland baby-food candidates or salty right-wing nutjobs who think Sam Alito is just hunky dory for the Supreme Court. And they continue to struggle.</p>
<p>Will the Democrats -- and the Big Orange bloggers -- ever realize this? Maybe, but probably not in time for the 2006 elections.</p>
<p>Sorry, but you're not going to see masses of voters coming out to vote <em>against</em> something. People vote for change when there's a clear change offered. But when the Democrats continue to refuse to stand for anything -- especially people's fundamental human rights and equal protection under the law -- well, it's hard to get all fired up about what kind of "change" the Democrats might offer.</p>
<p>Back to what DarkSyde writes:</p>
<p>I know for a fact that many here are busting their ass to stop the GOP machine. Their commitment is admirable, downright inspiring. But I'd guess there's a few readers who keep meaning to do something as simple as register to vote, or contact their local Dem HQ, but haven't gotten around to it. Maybe you moved recently, maybe you just reached voting age, maybe you've been sick, or bogged down working two jobs just to stay afloat. The Republican Culture of Corruption is betting you won't get around to it in time. Question is, are you mad enough to prove them wrong, yet?<br />
The real question is, <strong>Are the Democrats strong enough to offer a reason for people to get out and vote </strong><strong><em>for</em></strong><strong> them?</strong> Bush and the Republicans may be suffering in public opinion, but the Democrats' poll numbers are pretty crappy, too. Why?</p>
<p>I submit that it's because they stand for nothing. The Republicans at least say what they're about. I find it offensive -- and I will vote against wingnuts every election -- but I'm already engaged in politics, active on this blog, paying attention to what's happening. But many people just shrug. Why? Because no alternative is ever offered up.</p>
<p>I'm sorry, but "Not as bad as the Republicans" is not much of a get-out-the-vote strategy for November.</p>
<!-- google_ad_section_start --><!-- google_ad_section_end -->http://mediagirl.org/media-girl/its-mad-mad-mad-mad-party#commentshuman rightscivil rightsCongressDemocratselectionHousepoliticsprogressive valuesSenateBusinessBusinessDemocratic PartyElections in the United StatesHospitalityHospitalityInternational Democrat UnionJackson, MichiganLawLawPolitical parties in the United StatesPoliticsPoliticsRalph NaderRepublican PartyWed, 22 Mar 2006 15:18:39 +0000media girl1223 at http://mediagirl.orgDemocrats and Republicans resort to strong-arm tacticshttp://mediagirl.org/media-girl/democrats-and-republicans-resort-strong-arm-tactics
<p><a href="http://pandagon.net/2006/03/08/dole-and-nrsc-threaten-voters-with-mandatory-survey/">Pam at Pandagon reports that Elizabeth Dole is behind a new Republican survey</a> that pretends to be an official government document, and includes this warning:</p>
<blockquote><div>DO NOT DESTROY YOUR SURVEY! The enclosed Republican Senate Leadership Survey is an OFFICIAL REPUBLICAN PARTY DOCUMENT. Your Survey is REGISTERED IN YOUR NAME ONLY and MUST BE ACCOUNTED FOR upon completion of this project. If you decide not to represent your local voting district in this important Republican Senate Leadership Survey - please RETURN THE SURVEY DOCUMENT - AT ONCE - IN THE ENVELOPE PROVIDED.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It's rather silly, really -- I would laugh at it, but then I'm not a Republican. But Republican voters who received this are pissed. The Southern Dem who picked up this scoop writes:</p>
<blockquote><div>This certainly sounds official and it also sounds threatening. If I didn't know better, I would think that something bad could happen to me if I didn't return this to the Republican Party. It also says it is confidential. That's like an abuser saying, "Don't tell. This is our secret." This could be very intimidating to an elderly person or someone who isn't experienced in politics.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Not to be outdone, the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701860_pf.html">Democrats are in the midst of a major data-mining effort</a> to build a database Americans, how they vote, how much they make, etc.:</p>
<blockquote><div>A group of well-connected Democrats led by a former top aide to Bill Clinton is raising millions of dollars to start a private firm that plans to compile huge amounts of data on Americans to identify Democratic voters and blunt what has been a clear Republican lead in using technology for political advantage.
<p>The effort by Harold Ickes, a deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House and an adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), is prompting intense behind-the-scenes debate in Democratic circles. Officials at the Democratic National Committee think that creating a modern database is their job, and they say that a competing for-profit entity could divert energy and money that should instead be invested with the national party.</p>
<p><strong>Ickes and others involved in the effort acknowledge that their activities are in part a vote of no confidence that the DNC under Chairman Howard Dean is ready to compete with Republicans on the technological front. </strong>"The Republicans have developed a cadre of people who appreciate databases and know how to use them, and we are way behind the march," said Ickes, whose political technology venture is being backed by financier George Soros.</p>
<p><strong>"It's unclear what the DNC is doing. Is it going to be kept up to date?"</strong> Ickes asked, adding that out-of-date voter information is "worse than having no database at all."</p></div>
</blockquote>
<p>Translation: Howard Dean apparently does not hold the American people in low enough contempt. Ickes doesn't want grassroots, he wants astroturf. No wonder the Democrats have largely been mum about the NSA's spying on Americans: Ickes and the Democratic "strategists" want to get their hands on that treasure trove of information.</p>
<p>What's so telling is how this is coming from the kind of Democratic leadership that cut off all their grassroots activists and get-out-the-vote crews right after the 2004 election. You want to talk about being stupid about networking and data, let's start with how the pre-Dean DNC bungled the entire 2004 election.</p>
<p>Maybe Ickes wants to be like Elizabeth Dole and be able to send out cynical, dunning emails to constituents, abusing and berating them into giving money.</p>
<blockquote><div>Consultants working for the Republican National Committee developed strategies to design messages targeting individual voters' "anger points" in the belief that grievance is one of the strongest motivations to get people to turn out on Election Day.
<p>Under the direction of Bush adviser Karl Rove, the RNC and state parties repeatedly tested the voter file and different ways to contact voters to determine which were most effective at boosting turnout.</p>
<p>"They were smart. They came into our neighborhoods. They came into Democratic areas with very specific targeted messages to take Democratic voters away from us," then-DNC Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said after the 2004 contest. "They were much more sophisticated in their message delivery."</p></div>
</blockquote>
<p>It helps that the Republicans were actually articulating their views, and arguing their positions. The Democrats have been afraid of doing that for the past 20 years.</p>
<blockquote><div>Ickes has quietly raised an estimated $7.5 million in start-up money for Data Warehouse. A prospectus said the company will need at least $11.5 million in initial capital.
<p>In addition to Soros's support, Ickes has the financial backing of some of the wealthy participants in a new fundraising group called the Democracy Alliance. He and Quinn, who will be chief executive of Data Warehouse, have hired technology specialists from internet retailer Amazon.com and a Harvard-Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer project.</p></div>
</blockquote>
<p>Nothing like seeing the would-be Democratic leader buying red.</p>
<p>---</p>
<p>Update PS: Apparently <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.asp?strID=C00360354">Amazon is giving a little bluer this year</a>.</p>
<!-- google_ad_section_start --><!-- google_ad_section_end -->http://mediagirl.org/media-girl/democrats-and-republicans-resort-strong-arm-tactics#commentsnewsbusinesscivil rightsDemocratspoliticsRepublicansBill ClintonBusinessBusinessDemocratic PartyEntertainmentEntertainmentEnvironmentEnvironmentHarold IckesHarold L. IckesHarold M. IckesHealthHealthHoward DeanInternet activismPerson CareerPolitical EndorsementPolitical parties in the United StatesPoliticsPoliticsPolitics of the United StatesQuotationRepublican PartyTechnologyTechnologyThu, 09 Mar 2006 01:11:02 +0000media girl1186 at http://mediagirl.orgWhen we talk of "right" and "left" we miss the other dimension of the political compass ("top" and "bottom")http://mediagirl.org/media-girl/when-we-talk-right-and-left-we-miss-other-dimension-political-compass-top-and-bottom
<p>...what do we mean, exactly? For these days it has little to do with the real political conflicts of this age.</p>
<p>There's a political model for governmental regimes that uses a circle as metaphor. For illustrative purposes, I've overlaid it on the <a href="http://politicalcompass.org/">political compass</a> that is in such fashion with bloggers today.</p>
<p><a href="http://mediagirl.org"></a></p>
<p>You put liberal democracy (lowercase "l" and "d") at the bottom of the wheel, and total dictatorship at the top.</p>
<p>Now, rather than define left vs. right in terms of economics, you define it in terms of basis for political debate: ideology vs. identity.</p>
<ul>
<li>As you move left, you have more conformist pressure in ideology.</li>
<li>As you move right, you have more conformist pressure in identity, race and religious dogma.</li>
</ul>
<p>Push far enough and the two sides meet again at the top, with the conformist pressure having become total authoritarian control by the government: dictatorship.</p>
<p>For example, Hitler was the extreme of the right, and his dictatorship was defined by notions of race and genetic superiority, as well as Christian Crusade. His contemporary rival for power in Europe, Stalin, was the extreme of the left, and his dictatorship was defined by notions of GoodThink and correct ways of thinking. Yet in effect upon the populace, the result is the same: no freedom. What's more, both vectors towards the top appeal to a pro-government form of nationalism. Either way, the effect upon the population -- the "peasants," as our own plutarchs in the West call us -- is much the same: total authoritarian control, little or no liberty, little or no privacy.</p>
<p>Today we're seeing the left push ever further up on the left side of the wheel, wanting more control over ideology. Thus quaint notions of freedom and equality are ditched for the ideology defined by the rulers: Party first, and Party always.</p>
<p>On the right, they've already pushed far up the wheel. What became clear to many in the aftermath of Katrina is that much of the right's basis of authority is based upon race. "Those people" are undeserving, the Right says. And this goes back to Reagan, and how he scapegoated all the nation's problems on poor, unmarried, black mothers, appealing to people's unexamined and deep-rooted racist attitudes perpetuated by a culture that allows everything from the grossly disproportionate public spending in minority neighborhoods, incarceration rates and crime rates, to stupid jokes (like Bill Maher's tasteless attack on Danny Glover last week, asking in an accusing tone, "Have you ever been on a college campus?").</p>
<p>What we see of these pushes by both parties towards authoritarian rule is the abandonment of the people and any effort to build an egalitarian society, a "liberal democracy" (small "l" and "d").</p>
<p>In his comment to <a href="http://mediagirl.org/node/1158">Matsu's post on the modern political ideology</a>, <a href="http://mediagirl.org/node/1158#comment-5005">pennywit writes</a>:</p>
<blockquote><div>Today, I face two increasingly unpalatable choices. In the GOP, the far right continues to build a bridge to the 16th century while the party's moderates (three at last count) cling to some vestige of what the party used to be. The Democrats, meanwhile, alternate between milquetoast "moderates" who are scared of their own shadows, Beltway insiders who are afrai of losing what little power they have, and far-left firebrands whose politics I find no more palatable than Jerry Falwell's.
<p>Despite the scorn heaped on Lieberman by the Kosettes and the lack of respect that Republican firebreathers show Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, and Lincoln Chafee, I often find myself in that moderate middle ground. And though survey after survey tells me that I am hardly alone in this position, Snowe Country has rapidly become a political no man's land, leaving me with few, if any, worthwhile choices at the ballot box.</p></div>
</blockquote>
<p>What pennywit is saying is what millions of "We the People" can see, whether we all can articulate it or not. "My vote doesn't count," "What's the point of voting?" and "They're all the same, anyway," are similar declarations of this realization that our two-party system is all about who will hold the authoritarian sword over the people, and not about representative government at all.</p>
<p>In a separate comment on the same thread, <a href="http://mediagirl.org/node/1158#comment-5004">pennywit says</a>:</p>
<blockquote><div>The Democrats have sunk a lot of effort into being the default party -- that is, the people you vote for when a particular Republican is repugnant. But given that it is possible for the GOP to put forward a non-repugnant candidate, this is a losing proposition for the Democrats.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>But when both parties are pushing up either side of that circle, the people are left alone ... at the bottom.</p>
<p>Caveat: Nothing in real life is as clean or simple as theory, and there's no question that the Democrats and Republicans also use conformist pressures from the "opposite" side. For example, Republicans certainly trumpeted their own brand of ideological pressure upon the population. To a degree, their attitudes are born out of religious dogma and identity, but as they couch their arguments more in terms of civil ideology they are borrowing from the "left" in this model. And on the other side, the Democrats seem to covet right-wing appeals to identity and religion. Their recruiting of political candidates like Bob Casey, Jr. are manifestations of this.</p>
<p>To be sure, there are many ways to break down and analyze the political landscape. Still, I find this model illustrative in deciphering the differences and similarities between the two parties -- especially in how they are behaving today, in this election year.</p>
<p>Your thoughts?</p>
<!-- google_ad_section_start --><!-- google_ad_section_end -->http://mediagirl.org/media-girl/when-we-talk-right-and-left-we-miss-other-dimension-political-compass-top-and-bottom#commentshuman rightscivil rightsDemocratsprogressive valuesreproductive rightsRepublicansBusinessBusinessDemocratic PartyIdeologyPhilosophyPolitical ideologiesPolitical parties in the United StatesPolitical philosophyPolitical RelationshipPolitical spectrumPoliticsPoliticsRepublican PartyRight-wing politicsSocial IssuesSocial IssuesSocial philosophySocial theoriesThu, 02 Mar 2006 18:10:43 +0000media girl1160 at http://mediagirl.org